Does God Have a Body? Rāmānuja's Challenge to the Christian Tradition
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies Volume 31 Celebrating Rāmānuja at 1000: The Heritage and Promise of the Study of Rāmānuja Article 19 in a Christian-Hindu Comparative Theology 2018 Does God Have a Body? Rāmānuja’s Challenge to the Christian Tradition Jon Paul Sydnor Emmanuel College, Boston Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs Recommended Citation Sydnor, Jon Paul (2018) "Does God Have a Body? Rāmānuja’s Challenge to the Christian Tradition," Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies: Vol. 31, Article 19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.7825/2164-6279.1696 The Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies is a publication of the Society for Hindu-Christian Studies. The digital version is made available by Digital Commons @ Butler University. For questions about the Journal or the Society, please contact [email protected]. For more information about Digital Commons @ Butler University, please contact [email protected]. Sydnor: Does God Have a Body? R?m?nuja’s Challenge to the Christian Tradi Does God Have a Body? Rāmānuja’s Challenge to the Christian Tradition Jon Paul Sydnor Emmanuel College, Boston ABSTRACT: The Christian tradition’s core Christian life. For embodied beings, any theological assertion is the embodiment of pastoral theology should commend God in the person of Jesus Christ. Yet, even embodiment within the Godhead. while asserting God’s incarnation in space and Hinduism, Christianity, and Godhead time, the tradition has usually denied Embodiment: Continuing a liberal Christian embodiment unto the Godhead itself. trajectory toward divine embodiment. Theologians have based this denial on Jewish The Christian tradition presumes divine iconoclasm, Greek idealism, and inferences embodiment, founded as it is on the from God’s omnipresence, transcendence, and expression of the divine Logos in Jesus Christ infinity. This speculative essay will argue that (John 1). At the same time, the tradition has Hindu Śrīvaiṣṇava theologian Rāmānuja usually denied the possibility of Godhead successfully addresses these concerns. He embodiment—the assertion that God in argues for the embodiment of an omnipresent, Godself possesses a body. This essay will transcendent, and infinite personal God. tentatively, provisionally, and speculatively Rāmānuja largely derives his arguments from assert divine embodiment within the Godhead the Hindu scriptures. Nevertheless, their itself. Since creation is an expression of the rational explication and internal coherence overflowing love of God, our created condition render divine embodiment a legitimate must be a blessing. Hence, our material theological option for the Christian tradition, existence cannot be inferior to any purely whose scriptures present both spiritual existence, nor need we subordinate anthropomorphic and iconoclastic concepts of body to soul. God. Since Godhead embodiment is Biblically, Genesis 1.24-27 defines ontologically coherent and rationally humankind as made in the image of God. The defensible, Christians must accept or reject it Christian tradition has interpreted this text in based on axiological grounds, by evaluating many different ways. Athanasius defines the the felt consequences of the doctrine in image of God as, at least in part, our ability to Jon Paul Sydnor is Associate Professor of World Religions at Emmanuel College in Boston, U.S.A, where he chairs the Theology and Religious Studies Department. His academic specialization is interreligous thought. Dr. Sydnor is the author of Ramanuja and Schleiermacher: Toward a Constructive Comparative Theology (2011) and numerous articles. Currently, he is researching fundamental ontologies of relation across multiple traditions. Dr. Sydnor is an ordained Protestant minister and theologian-in-residence at Grace Community Boston where his wife, Rev. Abby Henrich, serves as pastor. Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 31 (2018): 18-36 Published by Digital Commons @ Butler University, 2018 1 Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies, Vol. 31 [2018], Art. 19 Does God Have a Body? Rāmānuja’s Challenge to the Christian Tradition 19 reason.1 Augustine, basing his interpretation rugged, lone maverick who thrives outside of of the image of God on the Trinity, notes that community, who is nonexpressive, psychologically we are three making a whole— unemotional, and antisocial. He needs no one.6 memory, intellect, and will co-operating In response to this diagnosis, certain within one person.2 More sympathetic to our theologians, such as Thomas J. Oord, have agenda, Irenaeus insists that the image of God instead argued for the passibility of God—that includes every part of a human—soul, spirit, God feels, and feels deeply. God is sympathetic and body. Hence, to invoke the divine image is to human events, responsive to human cries, to integrate all three aspects of our person and personally active in human affairs. God is into one experiential unity.3 Like Irenaeus, we highly involved, as a full person—thinking, are now attempting to define the image of God feeling, talking, and changing.7 This passible in this-worldly, embodied terms. Defined thus, concept of God implies rejecting another creation in the image of God invites us to traditionally ascribed quality of God, that of celebrate our condition as personal, local, and immutability. This doctrine asserts that God, sentient beings. Indeed, creation in the image being perfect, cannot change. The universe of God allows us to imagine God in Godself as cannot affect this perfectly actual God, who embodied—personal, local, and sentient— transcends the vicissitudes of creatures within although limitless with regard to this creation.8 However, as noted above, the universe. biblical God changes often. Moreover, if God is This consideration of divine embodiment a divine person, or a community of divine continues the trajectory of liberal Christian persons, and not an abstract ideal, then God theology which, over the past several decades, must be receptive to interpersonal influence. has adopted reforms that celebrate the human Love demands both openness to reality and condition. For example, most authoritative vulnerability to community, so steadfast love Christian theologians, such as St. Thomas will produce unceasing change.9 Aquinas, deem God to be impassible: without The divine mutability suggests, by way of passions, free of appetites, and incapable of consequence, the divine temporality. God is sensation.4 However, many theologians of not atemporal, in some timeless, transcendent late—feminist, womanist, process, open, et state. Instead, God is temporal, participating al—have reconsidered the doctrine of in time, open to change to the very core of the impassibility, describing it as both unbiblical divine being. To clarify: God as the creator and and patriarchal. As unbiblical, the doctrine sustainer of our spacetime cannot be limited ignores numerous biblical texts in which God to it—God is not restricted to our temporal is interactive, emotional, even conversational universe, as it were. But God is open to the (Exodus 33:11). The Bible ascribes qualities to succession of feelings, events, and emotions God that imply passability such as compassion that relationality affords. God is personal and (Exodus 22:27). God even changes the divine relational, which is to be timeful.10 mind, when presented with a convincing Finally, the doctrine of the social Trinity argument (Numbers 14:13-25, Amos 7:3, 6).5 As has received increased attention over the past patriarchal, the doctrine of divine several decades, led by such theologians as impassibility suggests a stoical male ideal who Jurgen Moltmann, Catherine Mowry Lacugna, is personally distant and emotionally John D. Zizioulas, and Leonardo Boff. While the unavailable. Impassibility celebrates the concept of God as three persons in https://digitalcommons.butler.edu/jhcs/vol31/iss1/19 DOI: 10.7825/2164-6279.1696 2 Sydnor: Does God Have a Body? R?m?nuja’s Challenge to the Christian Tradi 20 Jon Paul Sydnor communion has perennial expression within Nārāyaṇa unifies them through his sustenance Christianity, concerns regarding tritheism and diversifies them with real difference.12 caused the tradition to, at times, emphasize They are, simultaneously, one and many. the unity of God over the diversity within God. Such panentheism has parallels within the The theologians above, on the other hand, Christian tradition, even as Christianity has emphasize interpersonality within the usually rejected emanationism. Emanationism Godhead. In their view, God is three always is found suspect on several counts. First, in the becoming one, rather than one with three substantialist wording of the traditional different expressions. The multiplicity of God creeds, only Christ is of one substance precedes the unicity of God, not temporally, (homooúsios) with the Father. In order to but ontologically. Without community, preserve the uniqueness of Christ, the rest of without increase-through-relation, God would the universe must be of a different substance not be.11 from the Father. Since emanationism implies To many Christians, these three the universal sharing of one divine substance, theological reforms—interpreting God as substantialist christologies preclude mutable, temporal, and social—are highly emanationism.13 salutary. They re-articulate the biblical If the universe must be of a different assertion that we are made in the image of substance from the Father and Son, but is not God—for love, relationship, and community.